|
In
response to post # 92.
Dear
Mustayeen,
Thanks
for your beautiful exposé on democracy. You are right to trace the
historical background to find the definition of the term democracy,
since our subject of discussion is “Why has democracy not taken
root in most Muslim countries?”. Here “democracy” and “most
Muslim countries” are the two basic terms that must be clearly
defined.
In
this endeavour you have gone back to Maha Janapadas (http://en.wikipedia/wiki/democracy)
period (700-321 BC) when some of these Great Kingdoms were also
termed as “Republics” . But the republic does not necessarily
mean democratic. Even in our days, the two republics among Muslim
countries, are Islamic but not Democratic. Had you given the
definition of the democracy practiced by these ancient republics, it
would have been a great addition to my knowledge. The only
definition that you give, in paragraph # 4, is the same that I have
taken into account in my posts # 36 and # 41, as well.
In
paragraph # 9, you do some kind of extrapolation in the well defined
democracy to include the period of the four first Caliphs, as
democratic, with the help of an equation:
Selection
(or nomination ) + acceptence = popular election.
In
this equation a sign of “not-equal” will be more appropriate and
correct in place of equal (=) sign. The acceptence of a single
nominated or selected canditdate can not be termed as free
democratic election. According to this kind of extension of the
democracy, Musharraf is right to consider himself, a democratic
president, because he has been selected by the Army and accepted by
the people of Pakistan when they hailed him as their saviour in
1999.
In
paragraph # 5, you write: “For him (Plato), out of four, the best
kind of government was that of people. He considered democracy as
the bad form of this kind of government”. Between
these two sentences, there is a contradiction. If:
the
democracy = government of the people,
then
the same entity can not be the best and bad at the same time. It is
only possible if he changes the definition (in the second sentence)
of democracy from the government of people (all inclusive) to the
governement of a group of people (a small number of philosophers).
In my opinion, the great philosopher is using an illogical argument,
but you are free to throw my opinion in a waste-basket.
Still,
I do not understand the purpose of this paragraph. Did you want to
say that:
(1)
the government of the beople is the best,
(2)
democracy is bad,
(3)
Plato is an illogical philosopher or
(4)
you simply wanted to enhance my limited
knowledge of Ancient Greeks? Thanks for this last.
Any
system of government run by an institution or by a “group of
selected persons” is not a democracy.
According
to Aristotle: “Too many soldiers, too many public officials, or
too many of any other group except the great middle class will harm
or even destroy the state”.
Concerning
the “changing opinions” and “Divine Laws” (paragraphs # 7
and 8), Dr. Qazi (post # 93) has expressed his opinion to which I
adhere. He has presented his opinion better that I could have ever
done.
The
peak of your essay is the paragraph # 14, where you conclude: “ I
firmly believe ....”. Any “belief”, no matter how firm or
blind (Faith), is a “doubtful reality”. To believe in something
is not the proof of its existence. So, your conclusion based on your
firm belief is a “doubtful conclusion”.
When
I write “The reason is Islam” (paragraph # 1), I am using the
word Islam, as a system of government as opposed to democracy. I do
not intend to intervene between man and God personal relationship.
This ambiguity has been clarified in my post # 73 and I am indeed
very sorry for any misunderstanding due to my fault.
You
have raised some personal points which may be better settled between
you and me around a cup of tea, (Syed Iftikhar Haider posts # 60 and
# 82) when we meet. I hope it will be very soon.
Regards.
Muhammad
Ahsan Khan
Strasbourg, France
ahsan@noos.fr
|